Title: Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs—7 CFR part 56.

OMB Number: 0581-0128.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2008.

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 1087-1091, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) (AMA) directs and authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop standards of quality, grades, grading programs, and services which facilitate trading of agricultural products and assure consumers of quality products which are graded and identified under USDA programs.

To provide programs and services, section 203(h) of the AMA (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)) directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect; certify and identify; and identify the grade, class, quality, quantity, and condition of agricultural products under such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, including assessment and collection of fees for the cost of the service.

The regulations in 7 CFR part 56 provide a voluntary program for grading shell eggs on the basis of U.S. standards, grades and weight classes. In addition, the shell egg industry and users of the products have requested development and provision of other types of voluntary services under these regulations; e.g., contract and specification acceptance services and certification of quantity. Voluntary grading service is available on a resident basis or on an as-needed bases. The AMA requires Agency costs be assessed and collected from respondents who request voluntary program services. Information provided during the request is used by the Agency to determine cost assessments.

The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the AMA, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the program. The information request requires personal data, such as name, type of business, address and description of service requested.

The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of USDA (AMS, Poultry Programs' national staff; regional directors and their staffs; Federal-State supervisors and their staffs; and resident Federal-State graders, which includes State agencies) to administer and to conduct and carry out requested grading services. The Agency is the primary user of the information. Information is also used by authorized State agencies under a cooperative agreement with AMS.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.238 hours per response.

Respondents: State or local governments, businesses or other for-profits, Federal agencies or employees, small businesses or organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 630.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 23,130.50.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 36.72.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 5,513.64 hours.

Copies of this information collection may be obtained from David Bowden, Jr., Chief, Standards, Promotion, & Technology Branch, at (202) 690-3148.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: David Bowden, Jr., Chief, Standards, Promotion & Technology Branch; Poultry Programs, AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0259; Washington, DC 20250-0259. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the above address and may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of and need for the actions proposed in the West Rim project area is to reduce fire hazard and the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation and to increase vegetative diversity. All actions are intended to move toward or achieve related forest Plan Goals and Objectives, consistent with forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Proposed actions include the following:

Reduce the acres at moderate-to-high fire hazard by thinning stands to decrease crown proximity and by reducing fuel accumulations. Thinning may use commercial or non-commercial methods. Fuel reduction treatments could include lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning, construction of fuel breaks, and broadcast prescribed burning.

Reduce acres at high or medium susceptibility to mountain pine beetle by thinning stands and changing stand structure. Commercial and non-commercial (including prescribed burning) methods may be used.

Increase vegetative diversity through understory or overstory thinning, including commercial and non-commercial timber harvest. Remove ponderosa pine from hardwood, meadow, and riparian areas. Manage known location of old growth for old growth characteristics.

Road construction and maintenance activities necessary to access areas proposed for timber harvest. New roads would be closed following harvest, and existing roads that are not in the National Forest System could also be closed in conjunction with this project.

The Forest Service is the sole responsible agency for this project; no cooperators are participating in project planning.

Rhonda O'Byrne, District Ranger, Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 North Main Street, Spearfish, SD 57783.

The decision to be made is whether or not to approve the proposed action or alternatives at this time. No Forest Plan amendments are proposed.

Comments and input regarding the proposed action are being requested from the public and other interested parties in conjunction with this notice of intent. The comment period will be open for thirty days, beginning on the date of publication of this notice of intent. An open house to gather comments from local individuals and groups will be held on September 19, 2007, at the Northern Hills Ranger District office in Spearfish, SD. Also, response to the draft EIS will be sought from the interested public beginning approximately in February 2008.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is our desire to involve interested parties and especially adjacent landowners in identifying the issues related to proposed activities. Comments will assist in identification of key issues and opportunities to develop project alternatives and mitigation measures.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days (beginning approximately February 15, 2008) from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions ( Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts ( City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. it is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection (40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 21).

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six-month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. The Recreation Resource Advisory Committee will review considerations for new fees at least three months prior to the proposed initiation date. OHV use has been ongoing for many years on the Apalachicola National Forest.

Separate RODs for revised Forest Plans were issued in July 2003 for each of the SWIE National Forests (Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth). The RODs implemented Alternative 7, as identified in the single FINAL EIS that disclosed the environmental effects of the seven alternative Forest Plan strategies considered for these three National Forests. Implementation of the three revised Forest Plans began in September 2003.

Analyses supporting Forest Plan Revision identified wildlife habitats that had declined from historical conditions and associated these habitats with species of conservation concern (2003 Final EIS, pp. 3-255 to 3-289). Based on an update to the 2003 multi-scale analysis initiated in 2005, the Forest Supervisors for the three Forests are in the process of identifying priorities for maintaining and restoring habitats during the current 10-15 year planning period, as part of the comprehensive WCS. The WCS will also identify priorities for longer-term maintenance and restoration for other habitats that have experienced varying levels of decline.

The analysis supporting the revised Forest Plans, and subsequent updates to this multi-scale analysis, were developed using the principles and scientific methods generated during the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Boise Forest Plan, p. II-41; Payette Forest Plan, p. II-41; Sawtooth Forest Plan, p. II-38). The updated analysis also incorporates new information generated after the Forest Plans were revised in July 2003, including best available science as of this date. New information includes mid-scale assessments such as the 2005 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies for the States of Idaho and Utah, respectively, and the 2006 Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage Grouse in Idaho.

The SWIE revised Forest Plans identified the need to include management direction to focus restoration activities in habitats for species of concern (Boise and Payette Forest Plans, p. II-10 and, Sawtooth Forest Plan, p. II-9). However, while the 2003 Forest Plans include general direction that addresses this need, they do not include specific direction that spatially prioritizes one habitat area over another at scales smaller than Forest Plan management areas. Recognizing the importance of completing this task, the Responsible Official included, in each of the 2003 Plans, Forest Plan wildlife objective (WIOB03), which calls for prioritizing wildlife habitat to be restored at a mid- or Forest-scale using information from sources such as species habitat models and fine scale analyses.

Therefore, the purpose of this action is twofold: (1) To amend management direction and/or other components of the SWIE Forest Plans to reflect findings and priorities identified in the WCS as needed to guide Forest Plan implementation for the remainder of this planning period; and (2) to update the wildlife assessments pertaining to 36 CFR 219.19 (1982) as needed to reflect findings in updated analyses, as well as outcomes anticipated from implementing the amended Forest Plans.

The proposed action is to implement nonsignificant Forest Plan amendments that will include new or modified management direction and/or other components of the three Forest Plans, as needed, to reflect findings and priorities identified in the WCS to guide Forest Plan implementation for the remainder of this planning period.

The Responsible Officials are the three Forest Supervisors for the Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests:

Richard A. Smith, Forest Supervisor for the Boise National Forest, USDA—Forest Service; 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 83709.

Suzanne C. Rainville, Forest Supervisor for the Payette National Forest, USDA—Forest Service; 800 West Lakeside Avenue, McCall, Idaho 83638.

Jane P. Kollmeyer, Forest Supervisor for the Sawtooth National Forest, USDA—Forest Service; 2647 Kimberly Road East, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301.

The Responsible Officials will review the Final EIS and determine if the 2003 Plan for his/her respective Forest should be amended and/or modified, or if the current Forest Plan should remain unchanged.

Written comments must be received within 30 days from the day following publication of this NOI in the Federal Register . Providing comments within this time period ensures that they will be available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them during preparation of the specific proposed amendments and Draft EIS.

Additional opportunities for public participation will be provided following completion of specific proposed amendments, prior to release of the Draft EIS. Information and status updates of this amendment process, including specific proposed amendments, will begin to be posted on the Web site, http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/boise/ , by early winter 2007.

A legal notice will be published in the newspaper of record for each National Forest and a Notice of Availability (NOA) will be published in the Federal Register to inform the public when the Draft EIS is available for review and comment. The Draft EIS will be distributed to all parties who respond during the scoping process, or who otherwise notify the agency at some point following publication of this NOI of their interest to continue to receive information pertaining to this proposal.

The comment period on the Draft EIS will end 90 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the NOA in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of Draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the Draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 90-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the Draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following product and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On June 22, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 34433) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following product and services are deleted from the Procurement List:

On February 8, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a petition on imports of SHMP from the PRC filed in proper form by ICL Performance Products, LP and Innophos, Inc. (“Petitioners”) on behalf of the domestic industry producing SHMP. This investigation was initiated on February 28, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 9926 (March 6, 2007) (“Initiation Notice”); see also Notice of Correction of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 11325 (March 13, 2007). Additionally, in the Initiation Notice , the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market economy (“NME”) investigations. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries , (April 5, 2005), (“ Policy Bulletin 05.1 ”) available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities) has not changed.

On April 3, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of SHMP. The ITC's determination was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2007. See Investigation No. 731-TA-1110 (Preliminary), Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP) From China , 72 FR 17581 (April 9, 2007).

The Department also set aside a 20-day period from the publication of the initiation for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding product coverage during the 20-day period and subsequently, did not change the scope in the Initiation Notice .

The merchandise subject to this investigation is sodium hexametaphosphate (“SHMP”). SHMP is a water-soluble polyphosphate glass that consists of a distribution of polyphosphate chain lengths. It is a collection of sodium polyphosphate polymers built on repeating NaPO3 units. SHMP has a P2O5 content from 60 to 71 percent. Alternate names for SHMP include the following: Calgon; Calgon S; Glassy Sodium Phosphate; Sodium Polyphosphate, Glassy; Metaphosphoric Acid; Sodium Salt; Sodium Acid Metaphosphate; Graham's Salt; Sodium Hex; Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt; Glass H; Hexaphos; Sodaphos; Vitrafos; and BAC-N-FOS. SHMP is typically sold as a white powder or granule (crushed) and may also be sold in the form of sheets (glass) or as a liquid solution. It is imported under heading 2835.39.5000, HTSUS. It may also be imported as a blend or mixture under heading 3823.90.3900, HTSUS. The American Chemical Society, Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) has assigned the name “Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt” to SHMP. The CAS registry number is 68915-31-1. However, SHMP is commonly identified by CAS No. 10124-56-8 in the market. For purposes of the investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, not the tariff heading, CAS registry number or CAS name.

The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP in all grades, whether food grade or technical grade. The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP without regard to chain length i.e. , whether regular or long chain. The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP without regard to physical form, whether glass, sheet, crushed, granule, powder, fines, or other form.

However, the product covered by this investigation does not include SHMP when imported in a blend with other materials in which the SHMP accounts for less than 50 percent by volume of the finished product.

On March 6, 2007, the Department requested quantity and value (“Q&V”) information from a total of 38 companies identified by Petitioners as potential producers or exporters of SHMP from the PRC. Also, on March 6, 2007, the Department sent a letter requesting Q&V information to the China Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports (“BOFT”) of the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) requesting that BOFT transmit the letter to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, or produce the subject merchandise for the companies who were engaged in exporting the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. For a complete list of all parties from which the Department requested Q&V information, see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, regarding “Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China” (April 17, 2007) (“ Respondent Selection Memorandum ”). The Department received timely Q&V responses from five interested parties. The Department did not receive any type of communication from BOFT regarding its request for Q&V information. See id. , at 1.

On April 17, 2007, the Department selected Hubei Xingfa Chemicals Group (“Hubei Xingfa”) and Mianyang Aostar Phosphorous Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (“Mianyang Aostar”) as mandatory respondents in this investigation. See id. , at 3-4.

On May 10, 2007, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Letter to All Interested Parties, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”),” dated May 10, 2007, attaching Memorandum to Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, regarding “Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for List of Surrogate Countries,” dated May 9, 2007.

On May 10, 2007, the Department requested comments on surrogate country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments on June 4, 2007. Hubei Xingfa submitted surrogate country comments on June 4, 2007. Petitioners submitted rebuttal surrogate country comments on June 14, 2007. No other interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, see “Surrogate Country” section below, and the Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphophate from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,” dated September 6, 2007 (“ Surrogate Country Memorandum ”).

Between April 3, 2007, and May 4, 2007, we received timely separate-rate applications from three non-mandatory respondent companies: Jiangyin Chengxing International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Chengxing”), Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd. (“Tianyuan”), and Sichuan Mianzhu Norwest Phosphate Chemical Company Limited (“Norwest”).

On March 30, 2007, the Department requested comments from all interested parties on product characteristics to be used in the designation of control numbers (“CONNUMs”) to be assigned to the subject merchandise. The Department received comments from Petitioners and Hubei Xingfa.

On April 18, 2007, the Department issued its sections A, C, D, and E, 1 questionnaire to Hubei Xingfa and Mianyang Aostar, which included product characteristics used in the designation of CONNUMs and assigned to the merchandise under consideration.

On May 9, 2007, Hubei Xingfa submitted its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire, and on June 1, 2007, Hubei Xingfa submitted its response to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. On May 9, 2007, the Department placed on the record a letter submitted by Mianyang Aostar, indicating that it was withdrawing from the investigation. See Mianyang Aostar Withdrawal Memo . 2 The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Hubei Xingfa between June and August 2007, and received responses between June and August 2007. On June 12, and June 20, 2007, Petitioners submitted comments on Hubei Xingfa's questionnaires responses.

On July 20, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to separate rate respondent, Chengxing, which was submitted on July 30, 2007. In addition, on July 23, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to separate rate respondent, Tianyuan, which was submitted on August 6, 2007.

On June 20, 2007, Petitioners and Hubei Xingfa submitted comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On July 2, 2007, Petitioners also filed rebuttal comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On August 14, 2007, Petitioners and Hubei Xingfa submitted additional comments on surrogate information with which to value factors of production.

On June 25, 2007, Petitioners requested that the Department postpone the preliminary determination pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We did so on July 2, 2007. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China , 72 FR 37728 (July 11, 2007).

The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (February 8, 2007). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as a non-market economy. See Initiation Notice , 72 FR at 9927. The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, (“TRBs”) From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review: TRBs from the People's Republic of China , 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination.

When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the normal value section below.

As detailed in the Surrogate Country Memorandum , the Department has preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country on the basis that: (1) It is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. Thus, we have calculated normal value using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Hubei Xingfa's factors of production. See Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, regarding “Sodium Hexametaphophate from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination” (September 6, 2007) (“ Factor Value Memorandum ”).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.

Based on the evidence presented in Hubei Xingfa's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Hubei Xingfa is affiliated with Baokang Chuyuan Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (“Baokang Chuyuan”), which also produces subject merchandise, and certain suppliers of its material inputs, pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (G) of the Act. In addition, based on the evidence presented in Hubei Xingfa's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Hubei Xingfa and Baokang Chuyuan should be collapsed for the purposes of this investigation. This finding is based on the determination that Hubei Xingfa and Baokang Chuyuan are affiliated, that Hubei Xingfa and Baokang Chuyuan are both producers of identical products and no retooling would be necessary in order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and there is significant potential for manipulation of price or production between the parties. See 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.401(f)(1) and (2). For further discussion, see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin C. Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Collapsing of Hubei Xingfa Chemicals Group, Ltd.” dated September 6, 2007.

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Companies Hubei Xingfa and the separate rate applicants, Chengxing and Norwest, (hereinafter referred to as the Separate Rate Companies) have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of de jure and de facto government control, and therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate.

We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g. , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value , 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588.

(May 6, 1991) (“Sparklers”), as further developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers , 56 FR at 20589.

The evidence provided by Hubei Xingfa and the Separate Rate Companies supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: 1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 2) the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates Memorandum” (September 6, 2007) (“ Separate Rates Memorandum ”).

Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

We determine that, for Hubei Xingfa and the Separate Rate Companies, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: 1) Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; 3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.

With respect to Tianyuan, we determine that it failed to provide evidence regarding its corporate structure, specifically the nature of its parent company and whether or not its parent company was subject to control by the government. The separate rate application requires that the applicant provide specific documentation regarding its corporate history and corporate structure. Tianyuan did not provide complete information in its application nor in its supplemental response in regard to a specific question from the Department asking for this information. See Separate Rates Memo . Therefore, we determine that Tingyuan has failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate and it is deemed to be part of the PRC-wide Entity.

The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Hubei Xingfa, Chengxing, and Norwest demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide . As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted a separate company-specific rate to Hubei Xingfa. Additionally, we have granted the Separate Rate Companies a weighted-average margin for the purposes of this preliminary determination. See Separate Rates Memorandum .

The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of SHMP from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection Memorandum . We issued our request for Q&V information to 38 potential Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to the Bureau of Foreign Trade/Ministry of Commerce of the PRC (“BOFT/MOFCOM”). 3 See id. ,at 1-2. While information on the record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/exporters of SHMP in the PRC, we received only five timely-filed Q&V responses. Further, based on our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject merchandise from the PRC, the companies which responded to the Q&V questionnaire do not account for all imports into the United States. Although all exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that there were PRC exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI from PRC producers/exporters that did not respond to the Department's request for information. We have treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.

Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond to our request for Q&V information and did not respond to the Department's questionnaire (including the mandatory respondent, Mianyang Aostar). As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See Statement of Administrative Action , accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (“SAA”); see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation , 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate.

When employing an adverse inference, the statute indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available (“AFA”), the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. See SAA at 870. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) Highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at “Facts Available.” In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the calculated margin for Hubei Xingfa, the highest rate calculated of any respondent in the investigation. Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 4 As we did not rely upon secondary information, no corroboration was required under section 776(c) of the Act.

The Department received timely and complete separate rates applications from the Separate Rates Companies, who are all exporters of SHMP from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, these companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above in the “Separate Rates” section and in the Separate Rates Memorandum . Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have established a weighted-average margin for the Separate Rates Companies based on the rate we calculated for Hubei Xingfa, which was not zero, de minimis , or based entirely on AFA. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.

Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, “in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business.” However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (“ Allied Tube ”). The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both the respondent and the Department, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. In other words, the date of the invoice is the presumptive date of sale, although this presumption may be overcome. For instance, in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan , 61 FR 14067 (March 29, 1996), the Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were established at that point.

After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that Hubei Xingfa placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Hubei Xingfa because the terms of sales are set at the invoice date.

To determine whether sales of SHMP to the United States by Hubei Xingfa were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) to normal value (“NV”), as described in the “U.S. Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act.

For Hubei Xingfa, we based U.S. price on EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign movement expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and international freight expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Where foreign movement or international ocean freight was provided by PRC service providers or paid for in Renminbi (“RMB”), we valued these services using surrogate values ( see “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion).

For a complete discussion of the calculations of the U.S. price for Hubei Xingfa, see Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding “Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China: Hubei Xingfa,” dated September 6, 2007 (“ Hubei Xingfa Analysis Memorandum ”).

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production (“FOP”) methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP data reported by Hubei Xingfa for the POI. 5 To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below).

In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the Memorandum to the File, Through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, From Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Factor Values,” dated September 6, 2007 (“ Factor Value Memorandum ”) and Memorandum to the File, Through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, From Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for Hubei Xingfa Chemicals Group Co., Ltd.,” dated September 6, 2007 (“ Hubei Xingfa Analysis Memorandum ”). Additionally, for detailed descriptions of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, where applicable, see Hubei Xingfa Analysis Memorandum.

For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to calculate surrogate values for Hubei Xingfa's material inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), results unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that the Indian import statistics represent import data that is contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values, where appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.

Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See, e.g., Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 (“CTVs from the PRC”). We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

For Hubei Xingfa, certain inputs into the production of the merchandise under investigation were purchased from market economy suppliers and paid for in market economy currencies. We valued Hubei Xingfa's inputs using the market economy prices paid for the inputs where the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources during the POI exceeded 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during that period. Alternatively, when the volume of Hubei Xingfa's purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the POI was below 33 percent of the company's total volume of purchases of the input during the POI, we weight-averaged the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate surrogate value according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, as appropriate.

The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Hubei Xingfa used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, except where listed below. To value electricity the Department used rates from Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency. Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation using WPI. See Factor Value Memorandum.

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued direct, indirect, and packing labor, using the most recently calculated regression-based wage rate, which relies on 2004 data. This wage rate can currently be found on the Departmen's website on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by GE and Chenming. See Factor Value Memorandum .

Because water is essential to the production process of the subject merchandise, the Department considers water to be a direct material input, and not overhead. Hubei Xingfa stated in its questionnaire responses that it used water in the production of SHMP, but since it took the water from the river free of charge, it did not record its consumption of water. Therefore, we are using the water consumption rate from the petition for the production of SHMP only, and valued water with a surrogate value according to our practice. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China , 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. Although Hubei Xingfa has reported that it obtains water free of charge from the river, we find that whether the producer pays for water is irrelevant in determining whether it should be considered a direct material input. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 69 FR58392 (September 30, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at Comment 1.

Further, there is no evidence on the record that the Indian producer of comparable merchandise from which we are obtaining an overhead financial ratio accounts for water as an overhead expense. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 of the water rates were for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 of the water rates were for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See Factor Value Memorandum . After the preliminary determination, we will allow Hubei Xingfa an opportunity to report water consumption, but may have to resort to using an inference that is adverse to Hubei Xingfa if we are unable to obtain the information.

We used Indian transport information to value the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POI. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POI from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. See Factor Value Memorandum . Consistent with the calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as reported by www.infreight.com to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram per kilometer. To value PRC inland freight by barge we used Indian Inland Waterways rates from July, 1997, as used in the 2000-2001 antidumping duty administrative review of helical spring lock washers from the PRC. See Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 8520 (February 25, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at Comment 5. After inflating the value, the rate we derived from this source is in rupees per kilogram. See Factor Value Memorandum .

To value brokerage and handling (“B&H”), the Department used a simple average of the publicly summarized version of the average value for B&H expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in: (1) Essar Steel Ltd.'s February 28, 2005, submission in the antidumping duty review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India ( See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 71 FR 2018, 2022 (January 12, 2006)); (2) Agro Dutch Industries Ltd.'s March 2, 2006, submission in the antidumping duty review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India ( See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 5268 (February 5, 2007)); and, (3) Kejirwal Paper Ltd.'s January 9, 2006, submission in the antidumping duty investigation of Lined Paper from India ( See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India , 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006)). The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each source, and then adjusted each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the three per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POI. See Factor Value Memorandum.

Hubei Xingfa reported that it sourced ocean freight from market-economy countries and paid for it in U.S. dollars. For ocean freight, we are using Hubei Xingfa's reported market-economy ocean freight expenses. The Department valued marine insurance, where necessary, based on a publicly available price quote from a marine insurance provider at http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, as used in the 2004-2005 administrative review of brake rotors from the PRC. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR66304 (November 14, 2006). The rates quoted are based on 110% of US $100.00 value on all destinations from China. After inflating the value, the rate we derived is in rupees per kilogram.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify all information relied upon in making our final determination.

In the Initiation Notice , the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice 72 FR 9926 at 9929. This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of SHMP from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Hubei Xingfa, the Separate Rate Companies and the PRC-wide entity on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of SHMP, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date of the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief.

We will make our final determination no later than 75 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (“the Act”) requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates of the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period April 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007.

The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(h) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.

The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.

This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-X H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 85-13A18.”

The U.S. Shippers Association's original Certificate was issued on June 3, 1986 (51 FR 20873, June 9, 1986), and last amended on April 6, 2006 (71 FR 18721, April 12, 2006). A summary of the current application for an amendment follows.

Applicant: U.S. Shippers Association (“USSA”), 3715 East Valley Drive, Missouri City, Texas 77459.

Contact: John S. Chinn, Project Director, Telephone: (734) 927-4328.

Application No.: 85-13A18.

Date Deemed Submitted: September 4, 2007.

Proposed Amendment: USSA seeks to amend its Certificate to: Add each of the following companies and persons as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)):

(a.) Taminco, Inc.; Taminco Higher Amines, Inc.; and Taminco Methylamines, Inc., each located in Allentown, PA, and

(b.) Salvatore Di Paola and Carrie M. Bowden, both of Missouri City, TX.

The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops/ .

Effective December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop will be issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks.

Dealers may send a proxy to a Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, however, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who: is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and fills out dealer reports. Additionally, after December 31, 2007, an Atlantic shark dealer may not renew a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location has been submitted with the permit renewal application.

1. October 4, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. NMFS Panama City Laboratory, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408.

2. October 16, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Piggotte Community Center, 504 Big Tree Road, South Daytona, FL 32119.

3. October 25, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. - 3 p.m. Georgetown County Public Library Waccamaw Neck Branch, 24 Commerce Drive, Pawleys Island, SC 29585.

4. October 30, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Piggotte Community Center, 504 Big Tree Road, South Daytona, FL 32119.

5. November 8, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. City of Madeira Beach, 300 Municipal Drive, Madeira Beach, FL 33708.

6. November 29, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Elizabeth Public Library, 11 South Broad Street, Elizabeth, NJ 07202.

7. December 13, 2007, from 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. Miami-Dade Public Library S. Dade Regional Branch, 10750 SW 211 th Street, Miami, FL 33189.

To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander by e-mail at esander@peoplepc.com or by phone at (386) 852-8588.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following items to the workshop:

Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the shark dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the Atlantic shark dealer, a copy of the appropriate permit, and proof of identification.

The shark identification workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

Effective January 1, 2007, shark limited access and swordfish limited access permit holders must submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). As such, vessel owners whose permits expire in late 2007 must attend one of the workshops offered in October, November, or December 2007. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited access permit applicants must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and must submit a copy of their workshop certificate before such permits will be issued.

In addition to certifying permit holders, all longline and gillnet vessel operators fishing on a vessel issued a limited access swordfish or limited access shark permit are required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification workshop. Vessels that have been issued a limited access swordfish or limited access shark permit may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates. Vessel operators must possess on board the vessel valid workshop certificates for both the vessel owner and the operator at all times.

1. October 23, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hilton Garden Inn Outer Banks, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.

2. October 25, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Crowne Plaza Hotel, 801 Greenwich Avenue, Warwick, RI 02886.

3. November 7, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Hilton New Orleans Airport, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.

4. November 20, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Holiday Inn Harborside and Gulfview Beach Resort, 401 2 nd Street, Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33795.

5. December 6, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Embassy Suites, 661 NW 53rd Street, Boca Raton, FL 33487.

6. December 11, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.

To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Aquatic Release Conservation ((877) 411-4272), 1870 Mason Ave., Daytona Beach, FL 32117.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following items with them to the workshop:

Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

Representatives of a business owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit(s), and proof of identification.

Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

The protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. Identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops in an effort to improve reporting. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal for these workshops is to provide participants the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

Participants in the industry-sponsored workshops on safe handling and release of sea turtles that were held in Orlando, FL (April 8, 2005) and in New Orleans, LA (June 27, 2005) were issued a NOAA workshop certificate in December 2006 that is valid for three years. Grandfathered permit holders must include a copy of this certificate when renewing limited access shark and limited access swordfish permits each year. Failure to provide a valid NOAA workshop certificate may result in a permit denial.

The Panel, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established by section 209 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Panel advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice. The agenda for the meeting can be found at http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/leadership/review panel.html .

This meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee. If a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Reserve Officers' Training Corps Subcommittee until its next meeting.

None.

Background

Section 9 (a) and (b) of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-619) mandates a National Environmental Education Advisory Council. The Advisory Council provides the Administrator with advice and recommendations on EPA implementation of the National Environmental Education Act. In general, the Act is designed to increase public understanding of environmental issues and problems, and to improve the training of environmental education professionals. EPA will achieve these goals, in part, by awarding grants and/or establishing partnerships with other Federal agencies, state and local education and natural resource agencies, not-for-profit organizations, universities, and the private sector to encourage and support environmental education and training programs. The Council is also responsible for preparing a national biennial report to Congress that will describe and assess the extent and quality of environmental education, discuss major obstacles to improving environmental education, and identify the skill, education, and training needs for environmental professionals.

The National Environmental Education Act requires that the Council be comprised of eleven (11) members appointed by the Administrator of EPA. Members represent a balance of perspectives, professional qualifications, and experience. The Act specifies that members must represent the following sectors: primary and secondary education (one of whom shall be a classroom teacher)—two members; colleges and universities—two members; business and industry-two members; non profit organizations involved in environmental education—two members; state departments of education and natural resources—one member each; senior Americans-one member. Members are chosen to represent various geographic regions of the country, and the Council strives for a diverse representation. The professional backgrounds of Council members should include education, science, policy, or other appropriate disciplines. Each member of the Council shall hold office for a one (1) to three (3) year period. Members are expected to participate in up to two (2) meetings per year and monthly or more conference calls per year. Members of the Council shall receive compensation and allowances, including travel expenses, at a rate fixed by the Administrator.

The NEEAC staff office seeks candidates with demonstrated experience and/or knowledge in any of the following environmental education issue areas:

(a) Integrating environmental education into state and local education reform and improvement; (b) state, local and tribal level capacity building; (c) cross-sector partnerships; (d) leveraging resources for environmental education; (e) design and implementation of environmental education research; (f) evaluation methodology; professional development for teachers and other education professionals; and (g) targeting under-represented audiences, including low-income, multi-cultural, senior citizens and other adults.

The NEEAC staff office is also looking for individuals who demonstrate the ability to make the time commitment, strong leadership skills, strong analytical skills, strong communication and writing skills, the ability to stand apart and evaluate programs in an unbiased manner, team players, have the conviction to follow-through and to meet deadlines, and the ability to review items on short notice.

Any interested and qualified individuals may be considered for appointment on the National Environmental Education Advisory Council. Applications should be submitted in electronic format to the Designated Federal Officer potter.ginger@epa.gov and contain the following: Contact information including name, address, phone and fax numbers and an email address; a curriculum vita or resume; the specifc area of expertise in environmental education and the sector/slot the applicant is applying for; recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations and; a one-page commentary on the applicant's philosophy regarding the need for, development, implementation and/or management of environmental education nationally. Additionally, a supporting letter of endorsement is required. This letter may also be submitted electronically as described above.

Persons having questions about the application procedure or who are unable to submit applications by electronic means, should contact Ginger Potter, DFO, at the contact information provided above in this notice. Non-electronic submissions must contain the same information as the electronic. The NEEAC Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of the application. The NEEAC Staff Office will develop a short list of for more detailed consideration. Short list candidates will be required to fill out the Confidential Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities (which include membership on a Federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities and the appearance of a lack of impartiality as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epaform3110-48.pdf.

In April 2002, EPA issued its plan for future innovation efforts, published as Innovating for Better Environmental Results: A Strategy to Guide the Next Generation of Innovation at EPA (EPA 100-R-02-002); ( http://www.epa.gov/innovation/pdf/strategy.pdf ). EPA's Innovation Strategy presents a framework for environmental innovation consisting of four major elements:

1. Strengthening EPA's innovation partnership with states and tribes;

2. Focusing on priority environmental issues;

3. Diversifying environmental protection tools and approaches; and

4. Fostering more “innovation-friendly” systems and organizational cultures.

The State Innovation Grant Program strengthens EPA's partnership with the states by supporting state innovation compatible with EPA's Innovation Strategy. EPA wants to encourage states to build on previous experience (theirs and others) to undertake strategic innovation projects that promote larger-scale models for “next generation” environmental protection that promise better environmental outcomes and other beneficial results. EPA is interested in funding projects that: (i) Go beyond a single facility experiment and provide change that is “systems-oriented;” (ii) provide better results from a program, process, or sector-wide innovation; and (iii) promote integrated (multi-media) environmental management with a high potential for transfer to other states, U.S. territories, and tribes.

Since 2002, EPA has sponsored five State Innovation Grant Program competitions that asked for State project pre-proposals that support innovation generally related to environmental permitting programs. This has included alternatives to permitting and the establishment of incentives to go beyond compliance with permit requirements. To date, projects have clustered primarily around three strategic topic areas: Environmental Results Programs (ERP), Environmental Management Systems (EMS), and the National Environmental Performance Track (PT) Program and similar state performance-based environmental leadership programs. Thirty-five awards to States have been made from the five prior competitions. These projects awarded over 6.5 million dollars in assistance to States. Some of the projects fit into more than one category (e.g., combination projects of ERP with EMS, or ERP with PT). Among the grant projects, including those with pending awards: eighteen (18) were provided for development of environmental results programs, eight (8) were related to environmental management systems and permitting, eight (8) were to enhance performance-based environmental leadership programs, two (2) were for watershed-based permitting, and one (1) was for an information technology innovation for the application of geographic information systems (GIS) and a web-based portal to a permitting process. For information on prior State Innovation Grant Program solicitations and awards, please see the EPA State Innovation Grants Web site at http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants.

Eligible Agencies to Compete for the State Innovation Grant: Historically, we have limited the competition to state agencies with the primary delegations from EPA for permitting programs. We are aware that some state agencies re-delegate their authorities for permitting programs to regional, county, or municipal agencies. This year, EPA is considering enlarging the competitive range of the solicitation to include those to regional, county, or municipal agencies with delegated authority, but a tantamount factor for our consideration of this proposed eligibility scenario in order to ensure the broader application of the innovation being tested by the local agency will be that the local agency include the principal state environmental regulatory agency as an active member of the project team. Agencies are encouraged to collaboratively partner with other governmental agencies or non-governmental organizations within the State (or outside of their state) that have complementary environmental mandates or symbiotic interests (e.g., energy, agriculture, natural resources management, transportation, public health). EPA will accept only one proposal from an individual state. States are also encouraged to partner with other states and American Indian tribes to address cross-boundary issues, to encourage collaborative environmental partnering within industrial sectors or in certain topical areas (e.g., agriculture), and to create networks for peer-mentoring. We anticipate, that as in previous years, a multi-state or state-tribal proposal will be accepted in addition to an individual state proposal, but a state may appear in no more than one multi-state or state-tribal proposal in addition to its individual proposal. EPA regrets that because of the limitation in available funding it is not yet able to open this competition to American Indian tribal environmental agencies but we strongly encourage tribal agencies to join with adjacent states in project proposals. EPA is interested in hearing from regional, county, or municipal agencies about their interest, capacity, and the likelihood of commitment from the principal statewide regulatory entity to assist a potential project.

Proposed General Topic Areas for Solicitation: To increase the likelihood of strategic impact with what we anticipate to be limited funds, EPA proposes to continue with the general theme of “innovation in permitting,” and additionally to continue with the focus on the three strategic topic areas similar to the last competition: (1) Projects that support the development of state Environmental Results Programs (ERP); (2) projects which involve the application of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) including those that explore the relationship of EMS to permitting or otherwise promote the use of EMS to improve environmental performance beyond permit requirements (see EPA's Strategy for Determining the Role of EMS in Regulatory Programs at http://www.epa.gov/ems or http://www.epa.gov/ems/docs/EMS_and_the_Reg_Structure_41204Fpdf )(3) projects that support state performance-based environmental leadership programs or state support for implementation of the National Environmental Performance Track Program, particularly including the development and implementation of incentives. EPA's focus on a small number of topics within this general subject area effectively concentrates the limited resources available for greater strategic impact.

Projects will be much less likely to be funded through the State Innovation Grant Program if agency resources pertinent to the topic are already available through another EPA program.

Request for Input on Solicitation Topics and Priorities: EPA encourages communication from States and other parties about these three thematic areas mentioned here and other areas potentially ripe for innovation. EPA is asking for state environmental regulatory agencies and other interested parties to provide brief (about 1 paragraph) suggestions about additional innovation topics within the subject of innovation in permitting for possible inclusion in the upcoming solicitation. In addition to the three topic areas ERP, EMS, and PT, EPA will continue to encourage project proposals that address the four major elements (i.e., strengthening innovation partnerships; focusing on priority environmental issues; diversifying environmental protection tools and approaches; and fostering “innovation-friendly” systems and organizational cultures) and use tools (i.e., incentives, information resources, results-based goals and measures, etc.) highlighted in the Innovation Strategy. EPA may contemplate a very limited number of projects otherwise related to the general theme of innovation in permitting, in particular as they may address EPA regional and state environmental permitting priorities. To date, the State Innovation Grant Program has supported ERPs for: auto body/ auto repair/auto salvage sectors in six (6) state projects, underground storage tanks (UST) in three (3) states, dry cleaning in two (2) states, stormwater management in two (2) states, printing sector in one (1) state, animal feedlot operations in one (1) state, underground injection wells management in one (1) state, and oil and gas production in one (1) state. We are interested in continuing the EMS theme, but may consider some change to this theme. Also, we may be interested in projects that promote a developmental component or type of “on-ramp” for potential environmental leaders that require upfront compliance assistance. We may also be interested in exploring PT projects with an air permit component.

State Innovation Grants will not be applied to the development or demonstration of new environmental technologies. These assistance agreements will not be awarded for the development of information systems or data or projects that have as a primary focus the upgrading of information technology systems, unless there is a clear link to innovation in specific permitting programs. Projects would be much less likely to be funded through this State Innovation Grant if agency resources are already available through another agency program. Project selections and awards will be subject to funding availability. State environmental regulatory agency and other respondents should send their suggestions to EPA by mail, e-mail, or fax as described in the ADDRESSES section above.

Request for Input on Diffuse Delegations and Designation of a Primary Point of Contact: One of the principal goals of the State Innovation Grant program is the testing of an integrated (multi-media) innovation with the potential for replication or broader application in other sectors, permitting programs, agencies, states, or tribes. Because of the limitation of funds we have historically limited the competition to state agencies with a primary delegation from EPA for permitting programs. We have concerns that opening the competition to regulatory entities at lower levels (e.g. air control boards, water quality management districts, counties or municipalities) may limit the range of results and the potential for transferability of innovative approaches. We recognize, however, that in some instances states have re-delegated programs to regional or local agencies and that those agencies may manage substantial permitting programs. EPA is seeking comment from states that may have re-delegated several authorities to other governing regional or municipal agencies or boards rather than in one centralized state environmental regulatory agency and from the boards and districts on how we might accommodate those delegations in this program and take advantage of the expertise in those programs while maintaining the strategically important goal of testing innovation for broad application and transferability. EPA asks that each state environmental regulatory agency designate a primary point-of-contact who we will add to the EPA notification list for further announcements about the State Innovation Grant Program. For point of contact information, please provide: name, title, department and agency, street or post office address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax number, and e-mail address. If your point of contact from previous State Innovation Grant solicitations is to be your contact for this year's competition, there is no need to send that information again, as all previously designated points of contact will remain on our notification list for this year's competition. We are asking that any new name be submitted with the approval of the highest levels of management within an Agency (Commissioner, Director, Secretary, or their deputies) within 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Please submit this information to EPA by mail, fax, or e-mail prior to October 15, 2007 in the following manner:

By mail to: State Innovation Grant Program, National Center for Environmental Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1807T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.

By fax to: State Innovation Grant Program, (202) 566-2220.

By e-mail to: Innovation_State_Grants@EPA.gov.

We encourage e-mail responses. If you have questions about responding to this notice, please contact EPA at this e-mail address of fax number, or you may call Sherri Walker at (202) 566-2186. For point-of-contact information, please provide: Name, title, department and agency, mailing address (street or P.O. Box), city, state, zip code, telephone, fax number, and e-mail address. EPA will acknowledge all responses it receives to this notice.

Opportunity for Dialogue: Between now and the initiation of the competition with the release of the solicitation, communication with potential applicants may include helping potential applicants determine whether the applicant itself is eligible or if the scope of an applicant's potential project is suitable for funding, and responding to general requests for clarification of the notice. To ensure an equal opportunity for all potential applicants, responses to questions that come to us during the period between this pre-announcement and the release of the solicitation along with helpful resource materials will be posted on the State Innovation Grant Web site at http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants. States are also invited to communicate with NCEI about ideas for future competition themes by contacting the EPA Headquarters contact listed below. The contacts for the EPA Regions and the EPA HQ National Center for Environmental Innovation are as follows:

Opportunity for Pre-Competition Briefings and Addressing Questions: In addition, prior to this year's solicitation, we are planning to host a series of briefings and opportunities for question and answer (Q&A) sessions via teleconference calls, one with each EPA Region and all of their States. These conference calls will enable us to offer a two-hour streamlined proposal development briefing to all States prior to our solicitation, and will allow us to answer any questions that the States have prior to the competition, in keeping with Federal requirements that we afford assistance fairly in a competition process. Specific conference call logistics and grant resource information will be provided to each Region and the States as well as being posted on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants. Pre-competition briefing summaries, and all other all resource materials will be posted on the Web site at http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants. Through this effort, we are hoping to encourage individual States (and/or State-led teams) to submit well-developed pre-proposals that effectively describe in particular how their project will achieve measurable environmental results.

I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

Final RMAN V provides recommendations to procuring agencies for the purchasing of items designated in the CPG V final rule. Final CPG V may affect procuring agencies under RCRA section 6002 that purchase the following items: compost made from recovered organic materials and fertilizers made from recovered organic materials, as well as services, such as landscaping or facilities maintenance that include the supply or use of compost or fertilizers. Section 6002 defines procuring agencies to include the following: (1) Any federal agency; (2) any state or local agency using appropriated federal funds for a procurement; or (3) any contractors of these agencies who are procuring these items for work they perform under the contract. See RCRA section 1004(17). The requirements of section 6002 apply to these procuring agencies only when the agencies procure designated items whose price exceeds $10,000 or when the quantity of the item purchased in the previous year exceeded $10,000. A list of entities that the final CPG V may cover is provided in Table 1.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive. To determine whether the final CPG V applies to your procurement practices, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 247.12. If you have questions about whether the final CPG V applies to a particular entity, contact Marlene RedDoor at 703-308-7276.

1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0006. Information on the designated items is also available from the CPG V Docket, ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0005. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OSWER Docket EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-0270.

2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

As explained above, EPA (“the Agency”) has promulgated an amendment to the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) under the authority of sections 2002(a) and 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a) and 6962. This amendment is also consistent with Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” (72 FR 3919, January 26, 2007), which revoked Executive Order 13101, “Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition,” (63 FR 49643, September 14, 1998). Per section 2(d)(i) of Executive Order 13423, the head of each Federal agency shall require in the agency's acquisition of goods and services the use of, among other things, recycled content products.

Section 6002(e) of RCRA requires EPA to designate items that are or can be made with recovered materials and to recommend practices to help procuring agencies meet their obligations for procuring items designated under RCRA section 6002. After EPA designates an item, RCRA requires that each procuring agency, when purchasing a designated item, must purchase that item made of the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable.

Between 1983 and 1989, EPA issued five guidelines for the procurement of products containing recovered materials, which were previously codified at 40 CFR parts 248, 249, 250, 252, and 253. These products include cement and concrete containing fly ash, paper and paper products, re-refined lubricating oils, retread tires, and building insulation. Table II below summarizes designations of CPG I-IV and references the Federal Register publications.

On December 10, 2003, EPA proposed a fourth update to the CPG, the proposed CPG V (68 FR 68813), with a companion draft RMAN V (68 FR 68919) which are finalized by this action.

In the CPG V final rule, EPA is consolidating all compost designations into one item designation: compost made from recovered organic materials. In addition, EPA is establishing a new item designation: Fertilizers made from recovered organic materials. These items are being designated under the Landscaping Products category. Recovered organic materials include, but are not limited to, yard waste, food waste, manure, and biosolids. In the final RMAN V, EPA is publishing recommendations for fertilizers made from recovered organic materials and revised recommendations for the compost designation. (For more information on CPG, go to the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/cpg/. )

In the final CPG V and in 40 CFR 247.3, EPA is revising the previous definition of compost from CPG III (65 FR 3070) and adding a definition for “fertilizer made from recovered organic materials.”  1 EPA generally bases its definitions on industry definitions. Because there are a number of industry definitions for “compost” and “fertilizer,” EPA developed its own to prevent confusion to procuring agencies. EPA based its fertilizer definition in part on a USDA definition of “fertilizer” (see http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOP/NOP/standards/DefineReg.html ).

Because the description of the items designated in CPG V uses the term “recovered materials,” the Agency is providing a definition for that term in this notice. The Agency previously provided this definition in CPG I, and it is also provided at 40 CFR 247.3.

EPA received a total of 395 comments on the proposed CPG V and the draft RMAN V. In this section, EPA discusses the major comments relevant to the recommendations in the draft RMAN V. Because of their relevancy to both the final CPG V and the final RMAN V, certain topics below refer to responses found in the preamble to the final CPG V, which is published elsewhere in this Federal Register . You can find a more thorough summary of comments and EPA's responses in the “Background Document for the Final Comprehensive Guideline (CPG) V and Final Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN) V.”

This section summarizes and responds to the comments received in response to the Agency's specific requests for comments in the draft RMAN V.

Comments: EPA received a number of comments on the types of recovered materials identified in the item designations, and other recommendations. EPA did not receive any comments that address specifications for purchasing the items designated in this action. Several comments supported allowing biosolids and/or manure to be used for compost and/or fertilizer. Some of these comments stated that the inclusion of biosolids in the compost and fertilizer designations will increase market demand for these recovered material products, and will also provide further support for the long-standing practice of biosolids land application.

However, a number of commenters opposed revising the compost designation to include sewage sludge or generally opposed using biosolids, manure, and/or sewage sludge in compost or fertilizer. A few other commenters suggested that EPA add certain materials to the scope of “recovered organic materials” in the compost and fertilizer item designations and RMAN recommendations. A few commenters suggested that Exceptional Quality (EQ) biosolids products be included in what the commenters termed the “approved product list,” along with soil blends of EQ biosolids and other materials such as sawdust, sand, and yard trimmings. Another commenter suggested that EPA “include `cotton gin by-products' and cottonseed products as recovered plant organic materials that can be composted to produce `organic fertilizer.' ”

Several other commenters made recommendations. One commenter suggested that an extra safety measure would be to only permit the use of the sewage-derived products on trees and non-vegetable crops. Yet another commenter encouraged EPA to retain the 247.15(b) designation of compost language “for use in landscaping, seeding of grass or other plants on roadsides and embankments * * *” and add “and other uses” at the end of the sentence. This commenter also suggested that, because of concerns regarding pathogens, biosolids and manure must be processed and handled in accordance with the kinds of strict protocols put forth in 40 CFR Part 503, and that this should be further emphasized. One commenter said EPA should consider “amending the definition of `compost' to include, for biosolids composts, that the composting process must meet the time-temperature relationships in 40 CFR part 503, and for non-biosolids composts, that the compost must have been manufactured in accordance with applicable state regulations.”

Response: EPA agrees that the changes to include compost or fertilizer with biosolids or manure content as designated landscaping products will achieve an important goal of the CPG program—to increase market demand for items made from recovered materials. For responses to comments opposing the use of biosolids and/or manure in compost or fertilizer, please refer to sections VI.B.4, 5, and 7 in the preamble to the final CPG V, which is published elsewhere in this Federal Register .

EQ biosolids, cotton gin by-products, sawdust, and yard trimmings are already included in the scope of the fertilizer and amended compost designations and recommendations because these are recovered organic materials.

EPA rejected the suggestion that it recommend limiting the use of sewage-derived landscaping to trees and non-vegetable crops for the reasons explained in sections VI.B.4 and 6 in the preamble to the final CPG V, published elsewhere in this Federal Register .

EPA decided not to retain certain descriptive language in the 247.15(b) compost designation (“for use in landscaping, seeding of grass or other plants on roadsides and embankments * * *”). Similarly, EPA did not add the phrase “and other uses” at the end of the designation. (See section VI.B.6., in the preamble to the final CPG V, published elsewhere in this Federal Register , for the reasons that EPA did not retain this language.) However, EPA has retained this language (but did not add “other uses”) in the Preference Program section of the final RMAN V for compost. To emphasize the processing and handling protocols in Part 503, EPA references Part 503 in the final RMAN V for both compost and fertilizers.

Finally, EPA did not revise the definition in the CPG V final rule to include more specific language about state regulations or the time-temperature relationships in 40 CFR part 503. However, in the Specifications section of the final RMAN V for compost, the Agency references 40 CFR part 503 and recommends that procuring agencies check for applicable federal, state, and local government regulations on the use of compost. For more on the time-temperature requirements in Part 503, see pp. 28, 38, et al, of the EPA document entitled Environmental Regulations and Technology: Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge. This document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/Pubs/1992/625R92013.pdf.

Comments: One commenter agrees with the minimum recovered organic material content for fertilizers recommended by USDA, which is 80%. The commenter added that the 80% minimum would allow them to work in conjunction with commercial fertilizers to meet the specific needs of the government nutrient specifications.

Response: In the Draft RMAN V Federal Register notice, EPA explained that the items being proposed are generally made exclusively of recovered materials. In addition, in the background document for proposed CPG V, EPA stated that most fertilizers made with recovered organic materials contain up to 100 percent recovered materials. This being the case, EPA does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to recommend a minimum level or any particular recovered materials content range for fertilizers made from recovered organic materials.

For other comments and responses regarding limitations on the recovered organic materials contained in the fertilizers proposed by EPA, please refer to section V.A.4 in the preamble to the final CPG V, which is published elsewhere in this Federal Register .

The Agency did not receive any comments on other specifications pertaining to fertilizers.

The use of biosolids compost and fertilizers on or near food crops was addressed by several commenters and relates to EPA's recommendations in RMAN V. For a summary of comments and responses on this issue, please refer to section VI.B.4 in the preamble to the final CPG V, which is published elsewhere in this Federal Register .

Appropriate applications for compost and fertilizers made from recovered organic materials were addressed by several commenters and relate to EPA's recommendations in RMAN V. For a summary of comments and responses on this issue, please refer to section VI.B.6 in the preamble to the final CPG V, which is published elsewhere in this Federal Register .

Comments: EPA received a few comments suggesting that EPA gather data on the amount of fertilizers used by each federal agency. One commenter suggested that EPA gather information on the amount of compost procured by the government, the size of the market for various compost products made from recovered materials, and the sources and the supply of compost products. Another commenter suggested such a base line could be used to monitor the amount of biobased materials that are recycled as a result of the CPG V regulation.

Response: The Agency agrees that baseline data would be useful. Current Federal procurement data systems, however, provide no or limited information on the quantity of individual items purchased by Federal agencies. Many of the EPA-designated items are purchased with government credit cards or are supplied or used in the performance of support services at Federal facilities. Although agencies are required to report annually to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) about their implementation of RCRA section 6002, agencies do not report and are not required to report data on each EPA-designated item because the data systems do not capture this information. Instead, agencies report on the number of contracting actions in which EPA-designated items will be supplied or used, qualitative information on eight indicator items, and qualitative information of program implementation. The eight indicator items do not include compost because of the difficulty in obtaining quantitative information about purchases of this item. EPA hopes to be able to work with the agencies to develop data on services contracts that include the supply or use of compost and fertilizer.

Comments: EPA received a few comments suggesting that the agency should require disclosure by compost producers of all materials used in the manufacture of any compost sold to the federal government.

Response: EPA has no authority under RCRA 6002 to establish such a requirement. However, in the case of government procurement, individual procuring agencies, if authorized, may specify that the compost they purchase includes such a disclosure. Private parties may include such a disclosure as a necessary component of their solicitation. In the final RMAN V, EPA recommends that procuring agencies refer to the United States Composting Council's (USCC's) Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC), which are standardized methods for the composting industry to test and evaluate compost and verify the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of composting source materials and compost products. The TMECC also includes material testing guidelines to ensure product safety and market claims. Additionally, EPA is also recommending that procuring agencies refer to the USCC's Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) labeling program, which is a compost testing and information disclosure program that uses the TMECC. Participating compost producers regularly sample and test their products using STA Program approved labs, all of which must use the same standardized testing methodologies. Participants must make test results available to customers and certify that they are in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations with respect to their compost products. The USCC then certifies the participants' compost as “STA certified compost” and allows the use of the STA logo on the product packaging and literature. Procuring agencies may wish to consider specifying STA certified compost, especially for applications that require consistent quality. The USCC has developed sample specification and contract language, available at http://www.compostingcouncil.org/pdf/Specifying_STA_Prog.pdf . More information on TMECC and STA can be found at www.compostingcouncil.org .

Comments: EPA received a few comments that requested one or more of the following: procurement training, sample solicitation and contract language, technical guidance, annual review and reporting procedures, and EMS provisions. Specifically, a few commenters suggested that EPA establish training programs for procuring agencies, one focusing on the objectives of E.O. 13101 and the other focusing on the CPG program specifically. Another commenter explained that his agency typically purchases compost and organic fertilizers as part of support services or performance type contracts, not as a product. The commenter asked that EPA provide sample solicitation or contract language that can be inserted into these contracts, and make it available online. This commenter also suggested that, prior to designating future CPG products, EPA establish training programs, solicitation and contract language, technical guidance, annual review and reporting procedures, and sample environmental management system provisions. Another commenter made similar requests and recommended that EPA add the web URL for information referenced in the RMAN, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation's specifications and EPA's sewage sludge regulations.

Response: OFEE has workgroups consisting of federal procuring agencies which focus on a number of issues, such as record keeping, reporting, and EMS. The purpose of these workgroups is to share information and develop consensus programs. EPA will continue to work on these issues through its participation in the OFEE workgroups, where agencies can share model language solicitation and contract language. When the example model language for a solicitation or contract is available, EPA will post it on the CPG web pages or link to locations that give examples. Training tools and other green purchasing guidance are available on the OFEE Web site at http://www.ofee.gov . Guidance specific to Part 503 and biosolids issues is available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/ . Finally, regarding the suggestion to include web URLs for information referenced in the RMAN, EPA included them for all specifications in the final RMAN V.

Further information for specifications may be found in the Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers, including information on compost and is available on the Whole Building Design Guide Web site, at http://www.wbdg.org/design/greenspec_msl.php?s=329000 .

EPA made several changes to the draft RMAN V in the final RMAN V. First, in the Specifications section of the draft RMAN for compost and fertilizers, EPA referred to “individual state regulations” on the use of compost and fertilizers made with recovered organic materials, respectively. In the final RMAN V, EPA has expanded the reference to include other applicable federal and local government regulations as well.

Second, in the Specifications section of the RMAN for compost and fertilizers, EPA revised the description of the Part 503 requirements in order to provide clarification. For example, in the draft RMAN, EPA referred to 40 CFR part 503 as the “Biosolids Rule.” However, the actual title of Part 503 is “The Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge,” and not the “Biosolids Rule.” In order to avoid confusion, the term “Biosolids Rule” has been removed from the final RMAN V for compost and fertilizers.

Third, in the final RMAN for compost and fertilizers, EPA added a reference to USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) regulations, which prohibit the use of biosolids in organic production. EPA received many comments that cited the NOP regulations, and EPA cites the NOP regulations in the final RMAN in response to those comments. Likewise, in the final RMAN for compost, EPA added a reference to the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) guidelines and lists of materials allowed and prohibited in organic production.

As mentioned in IV.B.5 above, in response to a public comment suggesting that EPA include web URLs for information referenced in the RMAN, EPA included them for all specifications in the final RMAN V.

Also, as mentioned in section IV.B.4 above, in the final RMAN for compost, EPA added a reference to the USCC's STA program. This reference was added in response to comments concerning the issue of disclosure by compost producers of all materials used in the manufacture of compost. In addition, in the final RMAN for compost, EPA clarified the citation for the U.S. Department of Transportation's specifications. In the final RMAN for compost, EPA also revised the “Note” in order to provide clarification.

Finally, the draft RMAN V for fertilizers was entitled “Section F-6. Organic Fertilizers.” However, in the proposed CPG V, the proposed designation was phrased “fertilizers made from recovered organic materials.” EPA is revising the final RMAN title to read “Section F-6. Fertilizers Made From Recovered Organic Materials.” EPA is making this change so that the RMAN title matches the wording of the fertilizer item designation finalized by this action in 40 CFR Part 247.

Supporting materials for this final CPG V and RMAN V are available in the OSWER Docket and on the Internet. The address and telephone number of the OSWER Docket are provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above. To access information on the Internet, go to the EPA Dockets Web site at www.regulations.gov . Supporting materials can be accessed on the Internet at www.regulations.gov . Among the supporting materials available in the OSWER Docket and on the Internet are the following:

“Background Document for the Final Comprehensive Guideline (CPG) V and Final Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN) V,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, August, 2007.

“Economic Impact Analysis for Final Comprehensive Procurement Guideline V,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, July 2007.

The following represents EPA's recommendations to procuring agencies for purchasing the items designated in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) V in compliance with section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and E.O. 13423. These recommendations are intended to be used in conjunction with the RMANs issued on May 1, 1995 (60 FR 21386), November 13, 1997 (62 FR 60975), January 19, 2000 (65 FR 3082), April 30, 2004 (69 FR 24039), and the Paper Products RMANs issued on May 29, 1996 (61 FR 26985) and June 8, 1998 (63 FR 31214). Refer to May 1, 1995, November 13, 1997, January 19, 2000, and April 30, 2004 RMANs for definitions, general recommendations for affirmative procurement programs, and recommendations for previously designated items. In the case of compost, the recommendations published revise the previous recommendations issued in RMAN III. The RMANs are available on EPA's CPG Web site at http://www.epa.gov/cpg .

General recommendations for definitions, specifications, and affirmative procurement programs may be found in the May 1, 1995 RMAN (60 FR 21386). Procuring agencies should avoid specifications that may result in unintentional barriers to purchasing designated items, such as packaging, color, or cosmetic requirements that have no bearing on the item's functionality or performance, but that might prevent its purchase with the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable.

Recommendations for purchasing previously designated items may be found in RMAN I (May 1, 1995); RMAN II (November 13, 1997); RMAN III (January 19, 2000); RMAN IV (April 30, 2004); and the Paper Products RMANs (May 29, 1996, and June 8, 1998). Revised recommendations for compost are included in this notice.

FDA is providing this guidance in order to minimize confusion regarding particular marketing practices pertaining to ASRs. The guidance is not intended to cover the role of clinical laboratories in the development of laboratory developed tests. As noted in this guidance document, ASRs are building blocks of laboratory developed tests. With this final guidance document, FDA seeks to advise ASR manufacturers that it views certain practices as being inconsistent with the marketing of an ASR, as defined under § 864.4020 (21 CFR 864.4020). Some manufacturers have believed that when they combine a Class I ASR, which is exempt from premarket notification requirements under section 510(l) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(l)), with other products, or with instructions for use in a specific test, the product may still be regarded as an ASR that retains class I exempt status because the product contains an ASR. However, as explained in this guidance, when an ASR is marketed in combination with other products, with instructions for use, or with specific claims, FDA views the product as no longer being an ASR within the meaning of § 864.4020. Instead, FDA views products marketed in this way as another type of in vitro diagnostic device (IVD) or device component not covered by the ASR regulations and, therefore, not necessarily exempt from premarket notification.

The draft of this guidance was published in the Federal Register of September 7, 2006 (71 FR 52799). FDA received and considered more than 30 sets of comments on the draft guidance document. After taking the comments into consideration, FDA has revised the draft document to provide clarifications as needed. This includes clarifying that FDA views ASRs as being intended to detect a single ligand or target. This guidance further clarifies that oligonucleotide primer pairs and polyclonal antibodies can meet the definition of an ASR when properly marketed because they are for the identification of a single target or ligand (e.g., used to detect a single protein, a single nucleotide change, a single epitope). In addition, FDA has clarified that where manufacturers provide laboratories with information describing the use of their product in a specific test, the manufacturer's product would fall outside the definition of an ASR.

In order to assist manufacturers of Class II or III IVDs that are currently being inappropriately labeled and marketed as ASRs to come into regulatory compliance, FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to premarket approval and clearance requirements for 12 months (see DATES ). Manufacturers should ensure their products comply with the law by (see DATES ).

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on commercially distributed ASRs. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by using the Internet. To receive “Commercially Distributed Analyte Specific Reagents (ASRs): Frequently Asked Questions,” you may either send an e-mail request to dsmica@fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to 240-276-3151 to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1590 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH Web site may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh . A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html . Guidance documents are also available on the CBER Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm or on the Division of Dockets Management Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR 809.10 and 809.30 (§ 809.30) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 803 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0437; the collections of information in 21 CFR 807.22 and 807.31(e) are approved under OMB control number 0910-0387; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; and the collections of information in 21 CFR 814.20 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.

In addition, the labeling for Class I, exempt ASRs must bear the statement, “Analyte Specific Reagent. Analytical and performance characteristics are not established.” Class II or III ASRs must bear the statement, “Analyte Specific Reagent. Except as a component of the approved/cleared test (name of approved/cleared test), analytical and performance characteristics are not established” (§ 809.30(d)(2) and (d)(3)). The disclaimer and these statements do not constitute “collections of information” under the PRA. Rather, they are “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities Program was approved by Congress under the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 and is administered by the Office of University Partnerships under the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. In addition to this program, the Office of University Partnerships administers HUD's ongoing grant programs to institutions of higher education as well as creates initiatives through which colleges and universities can bring their traditional missions of teaching, research, service, and outreach to bear on the pressing local problems in their communities.

The HSIAC program provides funds for a wide range of CDBG-eligible activities including housing rehabilitation and financing, property demolition or acquisition, public facilities, economic development, business entrepreneurship, and fair housing programs.

On March 13, 2007, (FR Vol. 72, No. 48, 11477), HUD published a Notice of Funding Availability approximately $5.9 million in Fiscal Year 2007, plus $111,226 in unobligated funds for the HSIAC Program.

The Department reviewed, evaluated, and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the NOFA. As a result, HUD has funded the applications below, in accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545).

1. San Antonio College, Dr. Helen Vera, San Antonio College, 1300 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78212-4299. Grant: $597,530.

2. Midland College, Mr. Alfredo Chaparro, Midland College, 3600 North Garfield, Midland, TX 79705. Grant: $600,000.

3. Otero Junior College, Mr. Gary Ashida, Otero Junior College, 1802 Colorado Ave., La Junta, CO 81050. Grant: $599,176.

4. SBCCOES dba Trinidad State Junior College, Ms. Kerry Gabrielson, SBCCOES dba Trinidad State Junior College, 600 Prospect Street, Trinidad, CO 81082. Grant: $599,067.

5. Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, Dr. Denise Fairchild, Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, 400 West Washington Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90015-4181. Grant: $599,979.

6. Los Angeles Valley College, Dr. Deborah diCesare, Los Angeles Valley College, 5800 Fulton Ave., Valley Glen, CA 91401-4096. Grant: $600,000.

7. California State University-Long Beach Foundation, Ms. Denise Bell, California State University-Long Beach Foundation, 6300 State University Drive, Suite 332, Long Beach, CA 90815. Grant: $599,885.

8. Foundation of California State University Monterey Bay, Ms. Patricia Casey, Foundation of California State University Monterey Bay, 100 Campus Center, Bldg. 97, Seaside, CA 93955. Grant: $599,880.

9. Central Arizona-Pinal County Community College District, Mr. Al Larson, Central Arizona-Pinal County Community College District, 8470 North Overfield Road, Coolidge, AZ 85228. Grant: $599,985.

10. Heritage University, Mr. Rick Gagnier, Heritage University, 3240 Fort Road, Toppenish, WA 98948. Grant: $600,000.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

HUD announces its intention to sell in MHLS 2007-1 certain unsubsidized mortgage loans (Mortgage Loans) secured by multifamily and healthcare properties located throughout the United States pursuant to section 204(a) of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997, 12 U.S.C. 1715z-11a(a).

The Mortgage Loans are comprised primarily of non-performing mortgage loans. A final listing of the Mortgage Loans will be included in the BIP. The Mortgage Loans will be sold without FHA insurance and with servicing released. HUD will offer qualified bidders an opportunity to bid competitively on the Mortgage Loans.

The Mortgage Loans will be stratified for bidding purposes into several mortgage loan pools. Each pool will contain Mortgage Loans that generally have similar performance, property type, geographic location, lien position and other characteristics. Qualified bidders may submit bids on one or more pools of Mortgage Loans or may bid on individual loans. A mortgagor who is a qualified bidder may submit an individual bid on its own Mortgage Loan. Interested Mortgagors should review the Qualification Statement to determine whether they may also be eligible to qualify to submit bids on one or more pools of Mortgage Loans or on individual loans in MHLS 2007-1.

The BIP will describe in detail the procedure for bidding in MHLS 2007-1. The BIP will also include a standardized nonnegotiable loan sale agreement (Loan Sale Agreement).

As part of its bid, each bidder must submit a deposit equal to the greater of $100,000 or 10% of the bid price. In the event the bidder's aggregate bid is less than $100,000, the minimum deposit shall be not less than fifty percent (50%) of the bidder's aggregate bid. HUD will evaluate the bids submitted and determine the successful bids in its sole and absolute discretion. If a bidder is successful, the bidder's deposit will be non-refundable and will be applied toward the purchase price. Deposits will be returned to unsuccessful bidders. Closings are scheduled to occur on or before September 28, 2007.

These are the essential terms of sale. The Loan Sale Agreement, which will be included in the BIP, will contain additional terms and details. To ensure a competitive bidding process, the terms of the bidding process and the Loan Sale Agreement are not subject to negotiation.

The BIP will describe the due diligence process for reviewing loan files in MHLS 2007-1. Qualified bidders will be able to access loan information remotely via a high-speed Internet connection. Further information on performing due diligence review of the Mortgage Loans will be provided in the BIP.

HUD reserves the right to add Mortgage Loans to or delete Mortgage Loans from MHLS 2007-1 at any time prior to the Award Date. HUD also reserves the right to reject any and all bids, in whole or in part, without prejudice to HUD's right to include any Mortgage Loans in a later sale. Mortgage Loans will not be withdrawn after the Award Date except as is specifically provided in the Loan Sale Agreement.

HUD selected a competitive sale as the method to sell the Mortgage Loans. This method of sale optimizes HUD's return on the sale of these Mortgage Loans, affords the greatest opportunity for all qualified bidders to bid on the Mortgage Loans, and provides the quickest and most efficient vehicle for HUD to dispose of the Mortgage Loans.

In order to bid in the sale, a prospective bidder must complete, execute and submit both a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. The following individuals and entities are ineligible to bid on any of the Mortgage Loans included in MHLS 2007-1:

(1) Any employee of HUD, a member of such employee's household, or an entity owned or controlled by any such employee or member of such an employee's household;

(2) any individual or entity that is debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing business with HUD pursuant to Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24;

(3) Any contractor, subcontractor and/or consultant or advisor (including any agent, employee, partner, director, principal or affiliate of any of the foregoing) who performed services for or on behalf of HUD in connection with MHLS 2007-1;

(4) Any individual who was a principal, partner, director, agent or employee of any entity or individual described in subparagraph 3 above, at any time during which the entity or individual performed services for or on behalf of HUD in connection with MHLS 2007-1;

(5) Any individual or entity that uses the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity ineligible under subparagraphs 1 through 4 above to assist in preparing any of its bids on the Mortgage Loans;

(6) Any individual or entity which employs or uses the services of an employee of HUD (other than in such employee's official capacity) who is involved in MHLS 2007-1;

(7) Any mortgagor (or affiliate of a mortgagor) that failed to submit to HUD on or before March 31, 2007, audited financial statements for 1999 through 2006 for a project securing a Mortgage Loan; and

(8) Any individual or entity and any Related Party (as such term is defined in the Qualification Statement) of such individual or entity that is a mortgagor in any of HUD's multifamily housing programs and that is in default under such mortgage loan or is in violation of any regulatory or business agreements with HUD, unless such default or violation is cured on or before September 12, 2007.

In addition, any entity or individual that serviced or held any Mortgage Loan at any time during the 2-year period prior to August 31, 2007, is ineligible to bid on such Mortgage Loan or on the pool containing such Mortgage Loan, but may bid on loan pools that do not contain Mortgage Loans that they have serviced or held at any time during the 2-year period prior to August 31, 2007. Also ineligible to bid on any Mortgage Loan are: (a) Any affiliate or principal of any entity or individual described in the preceding sentence; (b) any employee or subcontractor of such entity or individual during that 2-year period; or (c) any entity or individual that employs or uses the services of any other entity or individual described in this paragraph in preparing its bid on such Mortgage Loan.

Prospective bidders should carefully review the Qualification Statement to determine whether they are eligible to submit bids on the Mortgage Loans in MHLS 2007-1.

HUD reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to disclose information regarding MHLS 2007-1, including, but not limited to, the identity of any successful bidder and its bid price or bid percentage for any pool of loans or individual loan, upon the closing of the sale of all the Mortgage Loans. Even if HUD elects not to publicly disclose any information relating to MHLS 2007-1, HUD will have the right to disclose any information that HUD is obligated to disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and all regulations promulgated there under.

This notice applies to MHLS 2007-1 and does not establish HUD's policy for the sale of other mortgage loans.

On May 22, 2007, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-07-16, “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information.” The memorandum includes a recommendation for agencies to adopt a new routine use specifically applying to the disclosure of such information in the course of responding to a breach. This new routine use is in response to that recommendation and is intended to facilitate a timely and effective response, allowing the disclosure of pertinent information to those individuals affected, as well as to persons and entities in a position to play a central role, either by assisting in the notification to affected individuals or by direct involvement with preventing, minimizing or remedying harms from the breach. In accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a this document provides public notice that HUD is proposing to adopt a “routine use” that is consistent with the purpose for which information is collected and subject to that Act, see 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3); also see 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(7). HUD believes that the routine use is consistent with the collection of information pertaining to such individuals to disclose Privacy Act records, when, in doing so, it will help protect the interest of individuals, whose information is at risk. Additionally, it improves the Department's ability to take appropriate steps necessary to facilitate a timely and effective response.

Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11) provide that the public be afforded a 30-day period in which to comment on a new routine use disclosure, and require published notice of the existence and characters of the systems of records.

The new system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act was submitted to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records about Individuals, dated June 25, 1993 (58 FR 36075, July 2, 1993). The existence and characters of HUD's completed Privacy Act systems of records can be viewed on the agency's Web site at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cio/privacy/pia/fednotice.cfm and currently consist of the following:

Accordingly, this notice establishes a new routine use for all records within HUD's systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The text of this routine use is taken from the routine use that has already been adopted by several agencies; including the Department of Justice for the same purpose described in this notice.

To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

(1) The Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

(2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and

(3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex, begun as announced in the Federal Register on July 21, 2005 (70 FR 42084). For more about the process, see that notice. We released the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) to the public, requesting comments in a notice of availability in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811).

The Draft CCP/EA identified and evaluated four alternatives for managing the refuge complex over the next 15 years. Under Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, present management would have continued. Current approaches to managing migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, other wildlife and habitats, and allowing for public use would have remained unchanged. Under Alternative B, management would have focused on maximizing opportunities for public visitation, increasing both facilities and activities. Under Alternative C, the refuge complex would have emphasized its biological program by applying maximum efforts to enhance habitat conditions and increase wildlife populations, particularly migratory birds. The visitor services program would have remained as it is at present. We chose Alternative D as the preferred alternative. This determination was made based on the best professional judgment of the planning team and the comments received on the Draft CCP/EA. Under this alternative, the refuge complex will strive to optimize both its biological program and its visitor services program.

Over the 15-year life of the plan, the complex staff will increase emphasis on environmental education and interpretation to lead to a better understanding of the importance of wildlife and habitat resources, especially invasive species, endangered species, and migratory birds. Research studies on the refuge will be fostered and partnerships developed with universities and other agencies, providing needed resources and experiment sites, while meeting the needs of each refuge's wildlife and habitat management programs. New surveys on birds, reptiles, and amphibians will be initiated to develop baseline information.

The Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex is currently comprised of seven national wildlife refuges, spreading across 12,500 square miles of northern Alabama. In addition, the Wheeler Complex administers five Farm Service Agency conservation easement tracts. The Final CCP/FONSI covers four of the seven refuges: Wheeler Refuge in Limestone, Madison and Morgan Counties; Key Cave Refuge in Lauderdale County; Sauta Cave Refuge in Jackson County (formerly known as Blowing Wind Cave); and Fern Cave Refuge in Jackson County. The other three refuges (Cahaba River, Mountain Longleaf, and Watercress Darter) will be addressed at a later date in separate plans.

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, consisting of 37,000 acres and located among the cities of Athens, Decatur, and Huntsville, was established in 1938 by Executive Order 7926 as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Additional purposes were added later under the authorities of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge, known as Blowing Wind Cave National Wildlife Refuge until 1999, is located near Scottsboro. It is a 264-acre refuge purchased in 1978 to provide protection for the federally endangered gray bat ( Myotis grisescens ) and Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) and their critical habitat. Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge, located near Paint Rock, was purchased in 1981 to provide protection for the federally endangered gray and Indiana bats. It consists of 199 acres of forested hillside underlain by a massive cave with many stalactite- and stalagmite-filled rooms. Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge, located about 5 miles southwest of Florence, was established in 1997 to provide protection for the endangered Alabama cavefish ( Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni ).

If you would like copies of the application, proposed HCP, or EAS, contact us by telephone (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) or by letter (see ADDRESSES ). Copies of the subject documents also are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ) and the Western Washington Fish & Wildlife Service internet site: http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/consplan/docs.html .

Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of a fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of federally listed fish and wildlife is defined under section 3 of the Act as including to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1538). We may, under limited circumstances, issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the Act as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for threatened species and endangered species, respectively, are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22. The applicant is seeking a permit for the incidental take of species that are listed as either threatened or endangered under the Act, and certain species should they become listed during the 50-year term of the permit. The species under consideration for coverage include bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ), California brown pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ), marbled murrelet ( Brachyramphus marmoratus ), tufted puffin ( Fratercula cirrhata ), bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus ), and coastal cutthroat trout ( O. clarki clarki ).

Proposed covered activities under the HCP include the subtidal harvest of wild stock geoduck clams ( Panopea abrupta ) on State-owned aquatic lands for commercial, research and health sampling purposes.

The majority of subtidal lands in the State, and the resources embedded in them, are owned by Washington State and managed by the WDNR. The geoduck clam is among the most commercially valuable of these resources.

The wild geoduck fishery in the state is jointly managed by WDNR, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Puget Sound Treaty Indian Tribes (tribes). The State and the tribes each have a right to 50 percent of the allowable geoduck catch. The State and the tribes are jointly responsible for estimating geoduck population size, determining sustainable yield, and protecting the health of the geoduck stock and the habitat they depend upon. WDNR offers the State's half of the geoduck harvest at auctions for the right of private companies and individuals to harvest specific quantities of geoducks in specific areas. As the State's managers of the geoduck resource, WDNR and WDFW enforce civil and criminal Washington State laws, regulations and contract conditions that apply to the State's fishery.

Washington's commercial geoduck fishery is divided into six geoduck management regions. Commercial harvest occurs within one management region at a time, and usually on one tract at a time. There are currently 400 commercial geoduck tracts comprising approximately 30,000 acres of subtidal bedlands. Ten to 14 harvest quotas are offered at each WDNR geoduck harvest auction, resulting in 30 to 40 individual harvest agreements annually. Typically, one or two tracts are open for harvest at any given time. The tract boundaries are defined by a water depth of -18 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) to the outer edge of the harvest area (depth of -70 feet MLLW). Most of the subtidal tracts range in size from 18 acres to 459 acres. A small number of tracts are larger. Harvest limits are based on the annual harvest level (Total Allowable Catch (TAC)). The TAC for a management region is the total weight of geoduck that may be harvested during the year in each management region. The number is calculated annually and is the product of the regional commercial biomass estimate multiplied by the equilibrium harvest rate.

The proposed minimization and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to: Limiting the number of acres open to harvest in each management region per year; permitting harvest only from tracts designated through contract by WDNR; clearly marking tracts with easily identifiable stakes and/or buoys, and recording latitude and longitude positions on all markers; limiting surface noise levels; applying harvest boundaries and buffers to protect eelgrass beds, forage fish spawning areas and other sensitive nearshore habitats and providing direct oversight of the fishery by maintaining compliance staff aboard vessels on harvest tracts each day that commercial geoduck harvest occurs.

Approval of the HCP may qualify for a categorical exclusion under NEPA, as provided by the Departmental Manual (516 DM2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1), and as a “low-effect” plan as defined by the Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (Service, November 1996). We determine whether an HCP is low effect based upon whether the HCP has minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats; minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and impacts that together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects would, not result, over time, in cumulative effects to the environmental values or resources which would be considered significant. If we find the HCP to qualify as a low-effect HCP, further NEPA documentation would not be required.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will issue an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to the applicant for take of the proposed covered species, incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the permit. We will not make our final decision until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

On March 16, 1934, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, it required all waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to buy a stamp annually. The revenue generated was originally earmarked for the Department of Agriculture, but 5 years later was transferred to the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to buy or lease waterfowl sanctuaries. Regulations governing the contest appear at 50 CFR part 91.

In the years since its enactment, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Today, some 1.8 million stamps are sold each year, and as of 2005, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $700 million for the preservation of more than 5.2 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States. Numerous other birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have similarly prospered because of habitat protection made possible by the program. An estimated one-third of the Nation's endangered and threatened species find food or shelter in refuges preserved by Duck Stamp funds. Moreover, the protected wetlands help dissipate storms, purify water supplies, store flood water, and nourish fish hatchlings important for sport and commercial fishermen.

The first Federal Duck Stamp was designed at President Franklin Roosevelt's request by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a nationally known political cartoonist for the Des Moines Register and a noted hunter and wildlife conservationist. In subsequent years, noted wildlife artists were asked to submit designs. The first contest was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter, and 65 artists submitted a total of 88 design entries in the only art competition of its kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. To select each year's design, a panel of noted art, waterfowl, and philatelic authorities are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Winners receive no compensation for the work, except a pane of their stamps, but winners may sell prints of their designs, which are sought by hunters, conservationists, and art collectors.

The public may view the 2007 Federal Duck Stamp entries on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 and through the days of judging. This year's judging will be held on Friday, October 12 and Saturday, October 13, 2007.

The following species are eligible for the 2007 contest: Mallard, American Green-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Canvasback and Harlequin Duck. Entries featuring a species other than the above listed species will be disqualified.

This coal lease sale is being held in response to a lease by application (LBA) filed by Cordero Mining Company, Gillette, Wyoming. The coal resource to be offered consists of all reserves recoverable by surface mining methods in the following-described lands located in central Campbell County, approximately 2 miles east of State Highway 59, 4 miles south of Bishop Road, and is adjacent to the southern lease boundary of the Belle Ayr Mine and the northwest lease boundary of the Cordero Rojo Mine:

The tract is adjacent to Federal coal leases to the north and east held by the Belle Ayr and Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively. It is adjacent to additional unleased Federal coal to the west and south. It is also adjacent to about 40 acres of private coal controlled by the Cordero Rojo Mine. All of the acreage offered has been determined to be suitable for mining. Features such as pipelines can be moved to permit coal recovery. In addition, oil and/or gas wells have been drilled on the tract. The estimate of the bonus value of the coal lease will include consideration of any future production from these wells. An economic analysis of this future income stream will determine whether a well is bought out and plugged prior to mining or re-established after mining is completed. The surface estate of the tract is owned by Cordero Mining Company, Caballo Rojo, Inc. and Foundation Wyoming Land Company.

The tract contains surface mineable coal reserves in the Wyodak seam currently being recovered in the adjacent, existing mine. On the LBA tract, the Wyodak seam is generally a single seam averaging approximately 70 feet thick. The overburden depths range from 170-360 feet thick on the LBA.

The tract contains an estimated 54,657,000 tons of mineable coal. This estimate of mineable reserves includes the main Wyodak seam but does not include any tonnage from localized seams or splits containing less than 5 feet of coal. It does not include the adjacent private coal although these reserves are expected to be recovered in conjunction with the LBA. The total mineable stripping ratio (BCY/Ton) of the coal is about 3.7:1. Potential bidders for the LBA should consider the recovery rate expected from thick seam mining.

The Maysdorf North LBA coal is ranked as subbituminous C. The overall average quality on an as-received basis is 8586 BTU/lb with about 0.27% sulfur. These quality averages place the coal reserves near the middle of the range of coal quality currently being mined in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin.

The tract will be leased to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount provided that the high bid meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of the fair market value of the tract. The minimum bid for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. The bids should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or be hand delivered. The Cashier will issue a receipt for each hand-delivered bid. Bids received after 4 p.m., on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, will not be considered. The minimum bid is not intended to represent fair market value. The fair market value of the tract will be determined by the Authorized Officer after the sale. The lease issued as a result of this offering will provide for payment of an annual rental of $3.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, and a royalty payment to the United States of 12.5 percent of the value of coal produced by strip or auger mining methods and 8 percent of the value of the coal produced by underground mining methods. The value of the coal will be determined in accordance with 30 CFR 206.250.

Bidding instructions for the tract offered and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease are available from the BLM Wyoming State Office at the addresses above. Case file documents, WYW154432, are available for inspection at the BLM Wyoming State Office.

The lands are not needed for Federal purposes. Lease or conveyance of the lands for recreational or public purposes use is in conformance with the BLM Arizona Strip District Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, dated January 1992, as amended, and would be in the public interest.

All interested parties will receive a copy of this notice once it is published in the Federal Register . The notice will be published in the newspaper of local circulation for three consecutive weeks. The regulations do not require a public meeting.

Upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register , the lands will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for lease or conveyance under the R&PP Act and leasing under the mineral leasing laws.

The lease or conveyance of the land, when issued, will be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:

1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States Act of August 30, 1890, 26 Stat. 391 (43 U.S.C. 945).

2. Provisions of the R&PP Act and to all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.

3. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the minerals, including all necessary access and exit.

4. All valid existing rights, documented on the official public land records at the time of lease or patent issuance.

5. CERCLA Term: “Pursuant to the requirements established by section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (43 U.S.C. 9620(h)) (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1988 (100 Stat. 1670), notice is hereby given that the above-described land has been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances had been stored for one year or more, nor had any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property.”

6. Indemnification Term: “All lessees, purchasers, or patentees, by accepting a lease or patent, covenant and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind or nature arising from the past, present, and future acts or omissions of the patentees or their employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third-party, arising out of or in connection with the patentees' use, occupancy, or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentees and their employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property which has already resulted or does hereafter result in: (1) Violations of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that are now or may in the future become, applicable to the real property; (2) Judgments, claims, or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (3) Costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (4) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substances(s), as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property and other interests of the United States; (5) Activities by which solids or hazardous substances or wastes, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (6) Natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. Patentee shall stipulate that it will be solely responsible for compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental and regulatory provisions, throughout the life of the facility, including any closure or post-closure requirements that may be imposed with respect to any physical plant or facility upon the real property under any Federal, State or local environmental laws or regulatory provisions. This covenant shall be construed as running with the above described parcel of land patented or otherwise conveyed by the United States, and may be enforced by the United States in a court of competent jurisdiction.

7. Terms and conditions identified through the site-specific environmental analysis.

Classification Comments: Interested persons may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for development of public school building(s). Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.

Application Comments: Interested persons may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and Plan of Development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the lands for public school building(s). Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective on November 13, 2007. The lands will not be offered for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Price Field Office planning area encompasses public lands managed by the BLM in Carbon and Emery Counties, Utah. This includes approximately 2.5 million acres of BLM-administered surface lands and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral estate underlying federal, State, and private lands. The Price Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS), prepared to guide management of these lands, was released for public review on July 16, 2004. (The DRMP/EIS is available on the internet at: http://www.blm.gov/rmp/ut/price/ ).

There are multiple areas (totaling 933,440 acres) outside of existing WSAs, which have wilderness characteristics. The BLM's land use planning handbook (Manual Handbook H-1601-1) provides guidance for consideration of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in land use planning. The handbook provides that the BLM may consider these lands and resource values in planning, and prescribes measures to manage for their wilderness characteristics. These characteristics include the appearance of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.

The DRMP/EIS analyzed five alternatives for management of public lands in the Price Field Office, and disclosed the impacts of implementing each alternative. The Price Field Office Supplemental DRMP/EIS will prescribe specific actions to manage for the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in a new alternative to ensure that: (1) Adequate consideration is given to wilderness characteristics; (2) an adequate range of alternatives is considered for these lands; and (3) an adequate analysis is prepared from which to base future land use decisions. Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Price Field Office. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Copies of the Supplemental DRMP/EIS are available in the Price Field Office and on the Internet at the address provided above.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies the information collection that OSM will be submitting to OMB for approval. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0114 and is on the forms along with the expiration date. OSM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSM's submission of the information collection request to OMB.

This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Title: Technical Evaluations Series.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0114.

Summary: The series of surveys are needed to ensure that technical assistance activities, technology transfer activities and technical forums are useful for those who participate or receive the assistance. Specifically, representatives from State and Tribal regulatory and reclamation authorities, representatives of industry, environmental or citizen groups, or the public, are the recipients of the assistance or participants in these forums. These surveys will be the primary means through which OSM evaluates its performance in meeting the performance goals outlined in its annual plans developed pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: 26 State and Tribal governments, industry organizations and individuals who request information or assistance.

Total Annual Responses: 750.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 63.

The USIBWC is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain any project or works by the United States of America on the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP), as authorized by the Act of the 74th Congress, Sess. I Ch. 561 (H.R. 6453), approved August 19, 1935 (49 Stat. 660), and codified at 22 U.S.C. 277, 277a, 277b, 277c, and Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto. The LRGFCP was constructed to protect urban, suburban, and highly developed irrigated farmland along the Rio Grande delta in the United States and Mexico.

The USIBWC, in cooperation with the USFWS, prepared this Final EA for the proposed action of raising the Donna-Brownsville Levee System located in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, Texas to improve flood control. This levee system is part of the LRGFCP that extends approximately 180 miles from the Town of Peñitas in south Texas to the Gulf of Mexico. The Donna-Brownsville Levee extends 65 miles along the Rio Grande, downstream from the Donna Pump Station in Hidalgo County to an area east of Brownsville, approximately 28 miles upstream of the Gulf of Mexico, in Cameron County.

The Proposed Action would increase the flood containment capacity of the Donna-Brownsville Levee System by raising elevation of a number of levee segments to meet a 3-foot freeboard design criterion for flood protection. Height increases up to 2 feet are typically needed to reach the design freeboard value. The increase in levee height will result in an expansion to the levee footprint by lateral extension of the structure. Structural improvements may be required for some levee segments where seepage is a potential problem.

Background. On July 6, 2007, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (72 FR 15726, April 2, 2007) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews. Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 1 2

Staff report. A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 29, 2007, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

Written submissions. As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 3 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before November 1, 2007 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by November 1, 2007. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II (C) of the Commission's Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Determination. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

On September 4, 2007, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (72 FR 30627, June 1, 2007) was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response with respect to India was adequate and decided to conduct full reviews with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders concerning PET film from India. The Commission found that the respondent interested party group response with respect to Taiwan was inadequate. However, the Commission determined to conduct a full review concerning the antidumping duty order on PET film from Taiwan to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct full reviews with respect to the orders concerning PET film from India. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

Variable-Rate Premiums

Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and § 4006.4(b)(1) of the PBGC's regulation on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use of an assumed interest rate (the “required interest rate”) in determining a single-employer plan's variable-rate premium. Pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for premium payment years beginning in 2006 or 2007, the required interest rate is the “applicable percentage” of the annual rate of interest determined by the Secretary of the Treasury on amounts invested conservatively in long-term investment grade corporate bonds for the month preceding the beginning of the plan year for which premiums are being paid (the “premium payment year”).

On February 2, 2007 (at 72 FR 4955), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published final regulations containing updated mortality tables for determining current liability under section 412(l)(7) of the Code and section 302(d)(7) of ERISA for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2007. As a result, in accordance with section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of ERISA, the “applicable percentage” to be used in determining the required interest rate for plan years beginning in 2007 is 100 percent.

The required interest rate to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning in September 2007 is 6.33 percent (i.e., 100 percent of the 6.33 percent composite corporate bond rate for August 2007 as determined by the Treasury).

The following table lists the required interest rates to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning between October 2006 and September 2007.

The PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) prescribes the use of interest assumptions under the PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044). The interest assumptions applicable to valuation dates in October 2007 under part 4044 are contained in an amendment to part 4044 published elsewhere in today's Federal Register . Tables showing the assumptions applicable to prior periods are codified in appendix B to 29 CFR part 4044.

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of New York, dated 08/31/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of OKLAHOMA, dated 07/07/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 06/29/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: